What classes does Pathfinder Core need?


Playtest

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suspect the class list for the Pathfinder 2E is pretty fixed already. However, I was having a discussion about Vancian casting on Enworld, and I came to the conclusion that divine casters need their non-Vancian version in core just like wizards have sorcerers in core. I'm not thrilled with Oracle (instead of being playable but important, too many curses are either crippling or irrelevant), but unless Paizo was willing to create a new non-Vancian divine caster for 2E, that would seem to be the one.

(I don't see alchemist as core, but it seems more likely for another class to join it than for alchemist to not make it.)

So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?


Inquisitor/warpriest...basically 6th lvl casting 3/4 BAB divine variant. We actually don't know how will those types of classes work but they were the ones Paizo did best.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
prosfilaes wrote:


So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?

The ones that are popular, in the descending order of popularity. Hence, Alchemist is going core, as it is the most popular non-core class (even more popular than some core classes, such as Druid), next up is Oracle.


I think Mesmerist should be promoted to core. It was a class with a lot of cool mechanics and a nice alternative to bard.

Also, even though the class was in several points rather badly constructed, I really want to see the Kineticist. Of course, revamped so it can be actual fun to play

Both are very unlikely but one can dream right? :P

What is more likely, since the Alchemist became core, is the Oracle.
Also one of my favorites and so we would have a spontaneous divine caster - which is somthing core definitly lacked.
Alternative to Oracle would be a from ground up rebuild Favored Soul.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gunslinger seems like the most distinctive PF/Golarian class.


Weather Report wrote:
Gunslinger seems like the most distinctive PF/Golarian class.

I wouldn't say that, even though it was a nice class with a lot of flavor. But Many GMs had their problems with it.

If they add it, they should instantly add the Bolt Ace archetype to give an alternative for players and gms who want to reduce the ammount of black powder around


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Gunslinger seems like the most distinctive PF/Golarian class.
I wouldn't say that, even though it was a nice class with a lot of flavor.

I would say it's the most niche/specialised class, and nothing like it in D&D, that I know of. Hard to fold into other classes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
The ones that are popular, in the descending order of popularity. Hence, Alchemist is going core, as it is the most popular non-core class (even more popular than some core classes, such as Druid), next up is Oracle.

Adding a class from, say, Occult Adventures that has gone less noticed because it's a newer book and a big chunk to absorb as a whole may be more productive than taking a class from the APG that's popular largely because it's from Pathfinder's first character option book. Popularity should give way to expanding options and providing good material.

That said, the popularity of alchemists does explain why it's new core, and oracle fills a neat hole without needing a massive amount of new support material like something from the Occult Adventures or the gunslinger might.


prosfilaes wrote:
Adding a class from, say, Occult Adventures that has gone less noticed because it's a newer book and a big chunk to absorb as a whole may be more productive than taking a class from the APG that's popular largely because it's from Pathfinder's first character option book. Popularity should give way to expanding options and providing good material.

The Occultist and Spiritualist are two of my favourite PF1 classes (really dig both designs, not so keen on the others), but obviously I would not expect them in core. Apparently the Alchemist is the most popular non-core class, even more popular than some core classes.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think what Paizo was aiming for was to have a class that's distinct, doesn't feature in 5E, is an established part of Golarion canon and helps set PF2 apart from all the other "Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard" fantasy RPGs by having something unique in the core. Oracle is nifty, and I'd love to see them ASAP, but they're pretty much divine sorceres and don't stick out like Alchemists do.


Gorbacz wrote:
I think what Paizo was aiming for was to have a class that's distinct, doesn't feature in 5E, is an established part of Golarion canon and helps set PF2 apart from all the other "Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard" fantasy RPGs by having something unique in the core. Oracle is nifty, and I'd love to see them ASAP, but they're pretty much divine sorceres and don't stick out like Alchemists do.

Exactly, so a good runner up is the Gunslinger.


Gorbacz wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:


So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?

The ones that are popular, in the descending order of popularity. Hence, Alchemist is going core, as it is the most popular non-core class (even more popular than some core classes, such as Druid), next up is Oracle.

This.


Weather Report wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I think what Paizo was aiming for was to have a class that's distinct, doesn't feature in 5E, is an established part of Golarion canon and helps set PF2 apart from all the other "Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard" fantasy RPGs by having something unique in the core. Oracle is nifty, and I'd love to see them ASAP, but they're pretty much divine sorceres and don't stick out like Alchemists do.
Exactly, so a good runner up is the Gunslinger.

It would work, but there is more resistance to see them as core fantasy, and more important, guns need serious rework. Not going to be ready in august


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Crazy Cat Lady class, or a Pony Rider, would really help me convince my wife to play the game.


Megistone wrote:
A Crazy Cat Lady class, or a Pony Rider, would really help me convince my wife to play the game.

Cat totem druid (focus in summoning cats) and a small cavalier/druid who uses its pet as mount

bam

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Seisho wrote:
Megistone wrote:
A Crazy Cat Lady class, or a Pony Rider, would really help me convince my wife to play the game.

Cat totem druid (focus in summoning cats) and a small cavalier/druid who uses its pet as mount

bam

At least if we're talking 1e, a beastmaster ranger can have a bunch of less powerful animal companions rather than one big one; ideal for having a character surrounded by a horde of little kitties. A Lion Shaman druid has a lot of abilities focused on improved relationships with and abilities relating to felines. These are both core classes, with APG archetypes. (One can hope similar archetypes appear in 2e). A ranger, druid, paladin, cavalier, hunter, or summoner could all have a pony animal companion (or in the summoner's case, a pony-shaped eidolon). As Seisho noted to ride the pony the rider would have to be Small size. Halflings have some alternate race abilities that make them good at riding.

As to the OP -- core classes should be able to fill every major niche in fantsy roleplay, e.g., heavily armored warrior, mage, etc. and/or be definitely best at a thing no one else is. E.g., a brawler is best by far at unarmed combat, and masterful unarmed combatant is a key fantasy (and in particular sword and sandals) archetype, so a brawler should be core.

As I've said previously, I'm also all for removing classes that don't best fill a niche if they can be better scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. I feel no need to keep a thing in just because it was in a grandfather system's rulebook 30 years ago.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a lot of love for vancian clerics. I'm simply not sure I buy into the whole 'I will pray in the morning for these select holy boons, then later ask my god 'hey, remember that thing wee talked about this morning? can you do that now?' The verisimilitude is just not there for me, and I'd much rather the cleric be a 'spontaneous' caster, with perhaps the ability to expend extra resources to ask for something they don't 'know' (because you can always ask, right?).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Additionally, I don't feel the Barbarian needs to be it's own class as it is still just a pure martial character - it should be able to be built with a fighter chassis, and appropriate feats toward rage powers.

Similarly, I think the rogue/bard could be the same base chassis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, since pf2e is evolutionary, and not revolutionary, these things won't be looked at.


Whatever makes it through the playtest. As much as I'd love to see paladin dropped to the prestige class or alternate class that it actually is, I also don't want to see anything that hasn't made it through playtesting.

We know what's in the playtest already, in terms of classes. That means we know what's going to be in the actual CRB. That's not going to change.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I think what Paizo was aiming for was to have a class that's distinct, doesn't feature in 5E, is an established part of Golarion canon and helps set PF2 apart from all the other "Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard" fantasy RPGs by having something unique in the core. Oracle is nifty, and I'd love to see them ASAP, but they're pretty much divine sorceres and don't stick out like Alchemists do.
Exactly, so a good runner up is the Gunslinger.
It would work, but there is more resistance to see them as core fantasy, and more important, guns need serious rework. Not going to be ready in august

Totally, they just seem specifically Golarian, and yes, firearms need a complete overhaul. I do not except them to be core.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Of course, since pf2e is evolutionary, and not revolutionary,

Thank god, the last time they went revolutionary with a game like this, it went south.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are too many classes in the core already, let's not add more.

Honestly, I hope Paizo is more restrained with classes this edition. They started off PF1 so well and stuck to their guns of "few new classes" and then it all fell apart.

The oracle... I don't think we need a spontaneous divine caster class. Just an alternate table where you can swap out the cleric's prepared casting for spontaneous.
Ditto the neo-Vancian arcanist. That's not a class, that's a single page alternate rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Branch off these with Archetypes:
Fighter/Cleric = Crusader
Cleric of Nature = Druid
Wizard/Rogue = Bard
Fighter with emphasis on hand-to-hand combat = Monk
Wizard that foregoes traditional training = Sorcerer
Fighter/Rogue with emphasis on foraging, tracking, and camouflages = Ranger
Fighter with irresistible surges of wrath and fury = Berserker.

Done.


I like as many classes as I can get. Though I think the 12 in the playtest is a fine core set. As long as 3E/PF1 style multi-classing is in place I have been able to hammer out any concept. Thats the thing im worried about for PF2.


As someone who mainly played pathfinder, dnd3.x and a few completely unrelated systems....

what?
I don't know what its about but it surely does read as 'What classes does pf2 core need'


prosfilaes wrote:

I'm not thrilled with Oracle (instead of being playable but important, too many curses are either crippling or irrelevant), but unless Paizo was willing to create a new non-Vancian divine caster for 2E, that would seem to be the one.

So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?

Oracle is the spontaneous spell caster for divine. You might not like it, but it is.

prosfilaes wrote:
So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?

Better question, what to remove from core? I'd remove ranger, prestige classes, maybe sorceror (I want them to make sorceror significantly DIFFERENT from wizard, not just a spontenously casting wizard).

I'd add kineticist and maybe hunter. I'd add Magus, but I want them to take their time to design it properly, especially considering all of the implications with changes to the action economy.

But let's face it, they won't be making any additions to classes at this point in time. It takes time to design well.


Jason S wrote:
(I want them to make sorceror significantly DIFFERENT from wizard, not just a spontenously casting wizard).

Oh, I thought I was alone in this.

Tough, to be fair, I'd also like for Wizard to be something more than just being "the class which casts the most spells" and have some identity or unique mechanics to it, so when the eventual myriad of other spellcasters appear in supplements there's something that sets Wizard apart from them besides sheer volume of spells.
By what I've seen in previews so far, chances are that this is happening already though. And maybe with that, Sorcerer will have something to actually set it apart from Wizard.

Back on the original question: I'd like Gunslingers to be core if they managed to set them up in a way that weren't at odds with the established sword-and-magic fantasy mythos and imagery and guns were actually well implemented this time around. Maybe something like making them experts at ranged combat with bows or crossbows and call them sharpshooters or whatever to just avoid guns while keeping the playstyle? It wouldn't be the same though.

Still, even if the sharpshooter idea was doable, it seems like something that wouldn't really work as a core class and more like supplemental stuff.


2Zak wrote:
Maybe something like making them experts at ranged combat with bows or crossbows and call them sharpshooters or whatever to just avoid guns while keeping the playstyle?

Bolt Ace did this pretty well and has provrn its doable -> also best crossbow class

For most characters crossbow was just too taxing to be really effective
with his grit moves the bolt ace was simply the best option for a martial character who wanted to use crossbow
(for most others bow was simply better)
imo


Slayer. Because lots of people who play Rogue wants to play an assassin and not a thief.

Inquisitor. Because they are thematic, strong, polyvalent and make senses in a lot of campaign. And they allow players to make a Divine Thief or a Roguish Cleric. Or Van Helsing.

Kinetist. Because Avatar is the best cartoon ever. And every new player I had at my table wanted to play an elemental master.

Magus. Because an archetype or a fighting school or a Wizard school will probably not be enough.

Mesmerist. Good remplacement for thé Bard and makes more sense roleplay wise. And it is a fun class.


Oracle. A non prepared divine caster would be lovely. Not sure it’s relevant in 2E though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The same ones as pf1 core + alchemist.


I think that many of the core classes should be reexamined with the lessons learned from the hybrids and make them more like the hybrids.

Rangers could get the option to get slayer talents as class feats, have studied target be an option instead of favored enemy, perhaps both can be class feats, or even class feat trees.

Druids can have class feats that are more in line with the Hunter. Monks with brawler class feats, ect...

Hopefully a lot of the PF 1 archetypes can be done with class feats, there where a lot of really good bard archtypes that could probably be done with class feats

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason S wrote:
Oracle is the spontaneous spell caster for divine. You might not like it, but it is.

In Pathfinder 1E; they haven't even hinted at what might be coming outside of core in Pathfinder 2E. I think it likely to come back, but I would like more careful balancing of the curses.

Quote:
Better question, what to remove from core?

I'd say the removal of gnomes from the 4E PHB was one of the things that disinclined me to move to 4E. Paizo is probably wise enough not to make fun of it, like one of the transition videos for 4E did, but removing classes and races people expect from the base game is an easy way to alienate people.

Quote:
But let's face it, they won't be making any additions to classes at this point in time. It takes time to design well.

They still have a good year before having to get the final version to the printer. That's plenty of time to internally playtest a new version of an old class, or even do a PDF drop after the new playtest book is released and have some external playtesting of this additional class. I don't find it terribly likely, but it's far from impossible.


Bluenose wrote:
Though you have persuaded me that if PF 2e is a game that you tolerate, then it will be one that I won't play or spend money on.

Neat, don't play or spend money on a game because some random person on the internet called you out on your rampant edition warring shenanigans (however "shrouded" they might be), I'm all for it (for many reasons).

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed posts and replies that were creeping into edition warring territory. Please remember that its okay to like more than one system and its okay to like more than one edition of any given system.


not the paladin


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The witch of course. I can't be the only one who would like to play a witch.


yes we need the witch.

Scarab Sages

Witch is my favorite caster. I've played a bunch of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As someone else stated, I think they HAVE to reprint all the core classes...otherwise they risk alienating fans of the excluded class.

I would say the real question is what classes need to introduced ASAP back into Pathfinder. Alchemist is obviously taken care of, and I would say Witch, Oracle, Gunslinger simply for how important they are to the setting.


I like witch too but i'd really like to see their spell list lose heal spells and have their healing be related to class abilities in order to keep more separation between arcane/divine.

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / What classes does Pathfinder Core need? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.